The problem with O'Dowd's article is that she's so blatantly biased for Obama she can't report the facts. Hillary isn't "far behind" Barack Obama, and she isn't behind when two states are factored into the race that were left out due to their bumping up the primary.
This is the entire fallacy of the Obama team: they are making the mistake of trying to make the case that this primary is already over and Obama is the clear winner.
I keep hearing this push that Obama has "won the most states" when in fact, he has won almost none of the largest states.
Here is a ticker of the 10 largest US states:
1) California - Hillary won
2) Texas - Hillary won
3) New York - Hillary won
4) Florida - Hillary won (and her votes there don't count)
5) Illinois - Barack won
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary is posed to win, her poll numbers are very high
7) Ohio - Hillary won
8) Michigan - Hillary won over uncommitted (and her votes don't count from here)
9) New Jersey - Hillary won
10) Georgia - Barack won
So out of the 10 largest states, Hillary has swept the board. This is where most electoral votes will be won.
If Barack won every single state from Idaho to Wyoming to Nebraska to Kansas and Utah, I don't think it matters, because those group of 8-10 states combined have fewer electoral votes than one state in the top, like New York or California, and they don't have a chance of going Democrat this fall anyway.
Obama is winning a lot of primary states where they really aren't important to the general election.
So Obama wins heavily in Georgia, Utah, and Idaho for the primaries. Big whoop, those are clearly McCain states this fall.
I've always focused on how to get a Democrat elected in the fall, and its why I support Hillary. She has more appeal to the base AND to some key battleground states (in a general election she's much better in Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and a whole group of states Obama has less/little chance of winning).
In Canada, if a party won all major ridings in Quebec, Ontario, and BC while opposing parties swept Nunavut, Yukon, and NW Territories, would you say the vote was equal because the opposing parties won "as many provinces and territories" as the party who won Quebec, Ontario, or BC?
LOL I think not.
Out of the top 10, I already know the results. Barack Obama cannot win Florida and he is possibly going to lose Ohio. THESE ARE THE REASON WHY AL GORE AND JOHN KERRY ARE NOT PRESIDENT. Florida and Ohio.
American electoral politics aren't as easy as saying Barack has "won more states" so he should automatically be nominee. I am sick and tired of Republicans and would like a win for the Democrats.
If Hillary is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Hillary
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Hillary
4) Florida - Hillary
5) Illinois - Hillary
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary
7) Ohio - Hillary
8) Michigan - Hillary
9) New Jersey - Hillary
10) Georgia - McCain
Hillary will automatically have 207 electoral votes if she's our nominee based on my projections. She will have to win 63 more electoral votes from other states to win the election (and she can easily do this).
If Obama is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Obama
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Obama
4) Florida - McCain
5) Illinois - Obama
6) Pennsylvania - Obama
7) Ohio - McCain
8) Michigan - Obama
9) New Jersey - Obama
10) Georgia - McCain
Obama will have 160 electoral votes out of the top 10 if he's our nominee based on my projections. Obama will have to win 110 electoral votes to win the Presidency by winning tons of smaller states, many out of his reach. He's much more beatable by McCain. I LOVE OBAMA, but I don't see him winning in November.
There are 538 electoral college votes, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency.
In the electoral college, as it stands in 2008, its winner takes all, loser loses all. There is no proportion. If Obama loses Florida and Ohio, he automatically loses 47 electoral votes. What is 47 divided by 270? 17.4% Obama loses 17.4% of the necessary electoral votes automatically when he becomes our nominee and he has to make it up by winning tons and tons of small states, most of which he can't win.
For crying out loud, Hillary is the first Democrat to come along in years that Ohioans actually like and she will have an easy ride to winning Ohio. She's not AS competitive in Florida, but she's still up in polls over McCain and has a good relationship with Cuban Americans in South Florida, a huge typically Republican voting block. She has elderly women in her favor, TADA another HUGE DEMOGRAPHIC MATCH that makes Florida favorable for the Democrats if Hillary is our nominee. Obama stands no chance of winning Florida. Demographics are heavily against Obama, he's consistently down against McCain in polling for general elections. I care more about the Demographics than current polls: Florida is simply not Obama territory.
You want to know how many electoral votes Wyoming has? 3 votes. South Dakota and North Dakota have 3 each. If Barack wins the primaries in ND, SD, and WY, he has just won 3 states that have a total of 9 electoral votes and none of these states are Democratic friendly in a general election.
Arguing over spilled milk.
Hillary is a very electable Democrat.
And I don't blame anyone for not understanding electoral politics. Most Americans don't even get it, and this is a Canadian forum. But Canadians tend to be more educated than Americans anyway, so I still put you guys on equal footing even though we're discussing foreign politics here.